Interview with Attorney Charles Marshall on Cal. App. Massoud v JPM Chase

Tonight we pick up where the blog left off. The important but as yet unpublished opinion and decision in California Appellate court in which an appellate court stated clearly and unequivocally stated that allegations do state a cause of action if the homeowner contends that Chase did not buy loans in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement on September 25, 2008 between Chase, FDIC and the US Trustee in Bankruptcy. Is the court signaling that it is willing to accept the premise that at least some claims for collection and foreclosure are false?  The Court agreed that if Chase was claiming ownership and authority over the loan under those it was a false claim. Charles Marshall succeeded where others had failed. Tonight we discuss how he did it.  []=0